Re: Tell don't show? Please Show!
- Dear Susan: Glad you caught that one! GIBJ--- In
firstname.lastname@example.org, "Susan Donahue" <suzianne411@...> wrote:
> Apparently, some WHO struggle with grammar are fighting a losing
> --- In email@example.com, "goddessinbluejeans"
> <goddessinbluejeans@> wrote:
> > Dear Douglas and Wings and All Those Whom Struggle With Grammar:
> > Astute observations Douglas! Of course that is why writers, poets
> > included, hire editors and the like ilk!
> > We live in North America, free from the Victorian restraints of
> > absolutes and correct grammatical etiquette and/or usage.
> > and North Americans, Canadians included. do not feel the extremerule
> > angst like the Brits do in regards to the annoying grammatical
> > breaking. The Britians, known as the English, are the famed heartfeel
> > the Lion and Unicorn hierarchial establishment are so keen on
> > pursuing grammar as The Most Important Feature Of English Usage.
> > In some ways, I agree; grammar as a psuedo-science is very
> > Douglas, when we make our usual grammatical errors can you not
> > those aberrant and bristled hairs standing up on the mustache ofam
> > Wings' elogated British stiff upper lip? His strong British chin
> > precipitously jutting over his computer keyboard as he gasps in
> > horror? Me too!
> > Similiar to the much more than annoying scrapping on the
> > the proverbial school marm, Wings, is perhaps much inclined to
> > each and every word of ours and its extraordinary consequential
> > errors of the worst kind. An incredibly daunting task, but one I
> > sure Wings can perform with extraordinary aptitude. "Oh no, notTheir
> > another dangling participle!
> > Yes, words matter, but is there not the freedom of speech to make
> > occasional error in grammar especially in Great Britian? Wouldst
> > Queen herself be standing over the dear Wings surveying all the
> > and all that is in it? What is with this fixation? Is there no
> > of freedom or at least, artistic license to err on the side of
> > expression, or the creative need to express oneself indelibly
> > grammar rules pounding on the right side of the creative brain?
> > I beleive I received my crackerjack box of nonconventional wisdom
> > from the Americans. Yes, I admire their writers and history.
> > freedoms and their almond joy chocolate bars.Perhaps it isjealousy
> > of my British cousins, but I do prefer the freedom of being ableto
> > express first, edit later. Are feelings edited out of the contexttheir
> > correct grammatical equation in English literary works? Do these
> > stiff rules create a collective binding of corsets and minds?
> > Americans did not throw their tea into the Boston harbour for no
> > reason. Grammar rules were driving them insane!
> > Yes, as much as the Brits like to correct Americans poor
> > sense of the world, they are also more likely to sit back in
> > winged-back chairs in their stuffy country clubs secretlychuckling
> > under their breath about their supremacy of the English as acoupe
> > d'etate and relish and langish in their domination of thislanguage
> > field. Scholars checkmate!as
> > And yes, we, as North Americans are more likely to dismiss the
> > restrictive constraints of the grammatical chastity belt, as far
> > writing is concerned, social issues aside, semantics anotherissue
> > altogether!puritanical
> > Canada, once the minion of redcoats and covered ankles
> > ethics, often could hold its own in regards to the Oxford'sEnglish
> > grammar rules. Canadians, an odd admixture of peasant and royaltyduel,
> > would be best described as "Victorian wannabes". No matter how
> > sublimated we became by the glove to the face in the grammar
> > were nevertheless polite when we accepted the writerly
> > How absolutely necessary the correct grammatical format, Ibelieve
> > this is true today as well.dear
> > Nose wrinkling becoming an art form, Canadians are not immune to
> > wrinkle said nose in disguist at the excessive rules constricting
> > their free flow of words.
> > It is true, Canadians rebelled, forever to be remembered as the
> > nation that prefixes all sentences with "Eh?". This slobberly
> > of a non-word confounds and bemoans my sense of propriety to
> > English usage. For this reason I am trying to move back to jolly
> > England. Move over Wings!
> > Those much dreaded "faux pas" incidents of dear Wings
> > premptive essay bespeaks of the need for grammar as sanity versus
> > insanity. Without the building blocks of the English language
> > Wings believes we will all fall down, grammatically speaking.With
> > clauses here and there and no one to pick up after the horribiluswork,
> > mess.
> > Rule Britianica or should it be Rules Britianica? Douglas, I did
> > check my nose, it does wrinkle! It looks like the question mark
> > man... I should send a pic to confirm this fact or Wings will not
> > accept this allegory!
> > This reminds me of my dear, sweet, yet cruel grammar teacher with
> > nosey twitch. Or is this burnt cranial image really Sir Wings
> > in the wings to smack my wrists with the ruler of grammatical
> > correctness? Excusez the pun, dear wings! Al. in beau geste!
> > Although, I believe I had missed many Grade 8 grammar classes due
> > illness of a faking sort, I remember a boy named Scott who could
> > all our collective (should I be correct here or go for the Yankee
> > gusto?)butt of the studentiary and take the first prize for
> > being "grammatically correct" student sum gratia. Where is Scott
> > when I need him? He is probably a professional banker with oddles
> > cash. Paying attention to grammar rules obviously pays great
> > dividends. Why did I not learn from Soott or at least learn by
> > by dating him once or twice?
> > Please point out my grammatical errors and my poor spelling and
> > punctionation, I kind of fancy the tickle to the wrist! Ouchez!
> > - In firstname.lastname@example.org, "douglas.ryan68"
> > <douglas.ryan68@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry for not letting the issue die, but this is something I've
> > been
> > > thinking of at work. There have been times when I've read how
> > > characters "wrinkled his/her nose" when the author is trying to
> > > "show" the character's reaction to what's happening or what the
> > other
> > > character says. First of, and a relatively minor point is that
> > noses
> > > don't wrinkle! I tried myself in the mirror and it doesn't
> > thenose
> > > bit between the eyes furrows and the nostrils flare, but the
> > > itself is inflexible cartilage that won't wrinkle. So whensomething
> > I
> > > guess make sure that the "shown" reaction is physically
> > > actually happens and even can happen. However, a bigger pointis
> > thatthe
> > > sometimes the reader has a completely different idea what
> > the "shown"
> > > reaction (or even the series of events, etc) even means then
> > > author does. There have been times when I thought wrinkling theface."
> > nose
> > > was supposed to be a cute reaction, but the author took umbrage
> > > that opinion and informed me otherwise.
> > >
> > > Today I finished reading "A Confederacy of Dunces" and towards
> > > end there was a bit of telling that something along the
> lines "Mr.
> > > Levy watched the anger and frustration play on his wife's
> > Thatletter
> > > might not be exactly how it went, but the point is that was
> > > that I feel was more effective then the "showing" of what her
> > > eyes, wrinkling nose, etc did. I found my imagination was more
> > > engaged by the telling then the author leading through
> > the "showing."
> > > That made it all the more satisfying to read. So in the case
> > telling
> > > worked quite well.
> > >
> > > If Vincent van Gogh had listened to an art teacher to the
> > > use such and such size brush to paint such and such scenes and
> > never
> > > use knives to paint, we would never of had is masterpieces.
> > thetittle,
> > > same with writing. I can agree that one should know the
> > > and grammar, but sometimes you need to trust your artistic
> > instincts
> > > when the rules and stock advice needs to be broken.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In email@example.com, "writing_queen_2007"
> > > <writing_queen_2007@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your absolutly right. I read a book, don't remember the
> > but
> > > > they explained that telling can be better then showwing, vice
> > versa.
> > > > You can alsways combine them as well.
> > > >
> > > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "douglas.ryan68"
> > > > <douglas.ryan68@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The advice, "Show don't tell" is oft repeated like a mantra
> > > > > writer's circles. However, is telling instead of showing
> > > in
> > > > > some cases. The prose is often more efficient with the word
> > count
> > > and
> > > > > narrative moves faster. Greats such as Charles Dickens
> > told, "It
> > > was
> > > > > the best of times. It was the worst of times." That's
> > > > > telling. CS Lewis does a fair bit of telling in his
> > of
> > > > > Narnia. Show is usually prefered, but telling is sometimes
> > better.
> > > > >
> > > > > So am I nuts? Are you gathering wood to burn the heretic at
> > > stake?
> > > > >
> > > > > Douglas
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >